Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: Support new input types for dataprocessor pipeline #157

Merged
merged 12 commits into from
Mar 5, 2024

Conversation

Elsie4ever
Copy link
Contributor

@Elsie4ever Elsie4ever commented Mar 1, 2024

Add implementation to support new input stage type http, sql and influxdb

level 0
image

level 1
image

level 2
image


This project has adopted the Microsoft Open Source Code of Conduct. For more information see the Code of Conduct FAQ or contact opencode@microsoft.com with any additional questions or comments.

Thank you for contributing to Azure IoT Operations tooling!

This checklist is used to make sure that common guidelines for a pull request are followed.

General Guidelines

Intent for Production

  • It is expected that pull requests made to default or core branches such as dev or main are of production grade. Corollary to this, any merged contributions to these branches may be deployed in a public release at any given time. By checking this box, you agree and commit to the expected production quality of code.

Basic expectations

  • If introducing new functionality or modified behavior, are they backed by unit and/or integration tests?
  • In the same context as above are command names and their parameter definitions accurate? Do help docs have sufficient content?
  • Have all the relevant unit and integration tests pass? i.e. pytest <project root> -vv. Please provide evidence in the form of a screenshot showing a succesful run of tests locally OR a link to a test pipeline that has been run against the change-set.
  • Have linter checks passed using the .pylintrc and .flake8 rules? Look at the CI scripts for example usage.
  • Have extraneous print or debug statements, commented out code-blocks or code-statements (if any) been removed from the surface area of changes?
  • Have you made an entry in HISTORY.rst which concisely explains your user-facing feature or change?

Azure IoT Operations CLI maintainers reserve the right to enforce any of the outlined expectations.

A PR is considered ready for review when all basic expectations have been met (or do not apply).

@Elsie4ever Elsie4ever marked this pull request as ready for review March 1, 2024 21:10
@digimaun
Copy link
Member

digimaun commented Mar 1, 2024

image

^--- Where it says 'password' that is really the secret name in keyvault, should we make the description more clear ?

Copy link
Contributor

@vilit1 vilit1 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm - check if ryan wants a look too

@Elsie4ever
Copy link
Contributor Author

image

^--- Where it says 'password' that is really the secret name in keyvault, should we make the description more clear ?

ok I will update the label name to be Secret reference?

azext_edge/edge/providers/check/dataprocessor.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
azext_edge/edge/providers/check/dataprocessor.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
azext_edge/tests/edge/checks/conftest.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@vilit1 vilit1 merged commit 29e80af into Azure:dev Mar 5, 2024
16 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants